Joan Robert's criticism of the superficiality of some of the CIM tests currently used to evaluate students' progress is appropriate ("School reform nonsensical," The Oregonian, 4/17/99). This is not, however, a justification for her wholesale condemnation of the Schools for the 21st Century reforms. Ms Roberts cites the David Sarasohn commentary "Politicos, not just schools, sub-standard,"(The Oregonian, 4/4/99) as an attempt to reveal to the public the "absurdities of the school-reform bill." To the contrary, a careful reading of the Sarasohn piece shows it refers, instead, to the absurdity of the Oregon Legislature, which in 1991 passed the ambitious reform law, but in the eight years since has utterly failed to fund the complex mandate. Sarasohn's point is the absurdity of the failure to fund the reforms, not that the reforms are absurd.
The legislature's failure is actually even more ridiculous: school funding has been reduced statewide, in some districts up to 19%, since the 21st Century standards were set. Sarasohn lists some of the rigorous goals and improvements, such as universal preschool and Head Start by 1998, and a 220-day school year by 2000, which have gone unfunded and ignored by the very same politicians who continue to claim education is their top priority. The superficiality of the CIM tests in all fields except writing and math directly reflects the lack of money for development and training.
Ms Roberts' distrust of the "hidden agendas" of some school critics, which have included scapegoating teachers for poor student performances, is well taken. The enemies of public education have whip-sawed the schools and teachers by raising standards while simultneously lowering resources and attacking teachers' pay, seniority, and job security. The media has contributed to the decline by wanting to have it both ways also; for example, the gratuitous remark by Sarasohn that, " Oregon schools could be doing better, even with the budget they have." Meaning what? That nobody's perfect?
Roberts' complaint focuses on the distraction caused by the "state people" who wasted schools' money and teachers' time in the process of developing the reform law. However, local control has been strengthened in the resulting law: provisions in the 21st Century school reforms, ORS 329.704, place responsibility for school improvement, staff development, and curriculum reform decisions with local school councils, made up of teachers, the school principal, parents and members of the community. Now some school districts are using lack of funding as an excuse to roll back accomplished reforms, such as local control. Lincoln County SD, for example, recently bypassed school councils in rescinding curriculum decisions that had been made by the local councils six years ago during early implementation of the 21st Century reforms. The new district administration cites the supposed efficiencies of uniformity and centralized decision-making.
Return to Primary Index